Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  Next

Comments 101301 to 101350:

  1. Ice data made cooler
    @ RSVP #45 Departing from 250ppmv CO2 and 209000ppmv O2 I arrive to 400ppmv CO2 and 209042ppmv O2 by making some reasonable assumptions (the conclusion won't change for making a more precise calculation). You have been said once and again your calculations are wrong -nobody would point each value and provide the valid one-. Any person doing reality checks and using common sense would have departed from CO2 being much more soluble than O2 and N2 and deducted that there would be a much higher volume of CO2 outgassed from warming oceans than the volume of every other di-gases. Said that and as the part of the atmosphere that is CO2 is so small when compared to nitrogen and oxygen the conclusion is obvious: the ppmv of CO2 raises while the change in the other two remains negligible. No calculation is needed to reach this conclusion, just the perception of someone with discipline and no preconceived conclusions to ascertain.
  2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel @ 220: You agree with four of the questions archiesteel puts to you; where agreement would seem to indicate agreement with some sort of greenhouse effect. And yet you appear to continue to maintain that such an effect is nonexistent, if your own questions such as:
    3/What is in your or anyone else's writing, that explains just how the presence of GHGs change a planets surface temperature from that in the absence of GHGs?
    are anything to go by. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the comment threads on the 2nd law of thermodynamics have for weeks been dominated by people (all of them doing a better job than I could) explaining to you just how, exactly, greenhouse gasses alter global surface temperatures (see KR's excellent summary @ 214, for example), and providing links (whether to other posts on this site or to other sites or the literature) showing how this effect can be, and is, directly observed to be taking place, and how its consequents (increase in global mean temperature, cryosphere mass balance decline, increase in ocean heat content, changes to migration patterss, animal & plant distribution, &c &c &c) are also observed to be taking place.
  3. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    John's book is out? Where can you get it?
    Response: She means The Guide. My book (the paper version) doesn't come out till around April 2011 - the process of getting a real book published is glacial compared to online publishing.
  4. Ice data made cooler
    RSVP: Your calculation is riddled with additional errors that you have not noticed. See my post 39. The calculation is too difficult to do on a blog. The longer you go on the clearer it is that you do not know what you are talking about. You are legendary for the "waste heat" thread and continue to raise the issue of waste heat even though the site has dedicated over 400 posts to explaining heat to you. Stop doing the same thing here. My post 22 sums up the situation about outgasing of O2. Read it again. A qualitative answer is the best you will be able to get. Read the posts that we give you. O2 and N2 are different from CO2 because of their chemical properties, which you do not understand. Archiesteel @41 x2. Alan: your post 28 was useful to me.
  5. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    oops, scratch that- should have read your new book first - there it is! Thank you!
    Response: The "Human Fingerprints on Climate Change" graphic is definitely coming - that was what I considered the most important graphic in the booklet although the feedback I'm getting from people is that everyone loves the cherry tree. It's just a tree! (sorry, don't know why that gets to me). When I add the "Human Fingerprints" graphic to the list of graphics, I also want to update the basic rebuttal of "It's not us" (with James' permission).
  6. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    While I have no idea how to do it, I'd love to see a visualisation of the 'fingerprints' of man made warming. Thank you for your efforts to date.
  7. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel writes: "Half of the IPCC thesis is that the Earths albedo reduces the surface temperature when some simple physics familiar to all shows that this simply isn't true." Which is, of course, pure nonsense. Black asphalt gets hotter than white cement on a sunny day. Albedo directly impacts temperature. This is something children can understand, even without knowing the big words for it. It is also simple logic. The total amount of energy coming in and going out must be the same... ergo, the amount of energy reflected plus the amount of energy absorbed and then emitted as heat must equal the amount of energy striking the object... ergo, the more energy an object reflects the less it absorbs and the less heat it emits. Which is why absorptive black asphalt gets hotter than reflective white cement. Also: "The other half of the IPCC thesis is that gases that emit/absorb infrared can change the heat distribution in the atmosphere." Actually, they've been observed doing that. Kinda like saying that there is a thesis that something will fall if you lift it up off the ground and then let go of it. Sure, that's what the thesis says... because that's what is actually happening.
  8. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #75, Pete, I took your (and others') advice and about the MERRA model at RC. I realized later that my "broader question" in #71 seems silly since one of the main purposes of modeling is to determine temperatures at each layer of the atmosphere. But looking at the equations for convection and radiation, I still don't see the conduction from GHG to nonGHG. Maybe it is so basic I missed it elsewhere in that pdf.
  9. Ice data made cooler
    Alec Cowan #44 "you don't catch the difference between an ion and a di-gas." I have referred to O2 assuming oxygen occurs this way in nature. If I am wrong about this, please exlain. As far as the "calculation", I have simply applied laws of proportion to the problem (and yes, made a mistake by reading a value incorrectly from a table), but the idea here is what matters not the the result. The idea simply that as CO2 outgasses so do a lot of other things. Since this fact doesnt seem to seat well with some people, there has been an attempt to discover flaws in my calculation, and ignore post 33. Ironically, I am being accused of being politically motivated. Since when have you heard of a politician admitting a mistake? Again, if this last value is off by some astounding amount due to a huge blunder, no one has yet pointed it out. As I said, we could all learn something. Yes, water "boils" at 100 degrees C, however that would be pure water, and at sea level. Beyond that, I dont think much more accuracy is needed. However, there will always be someone who will take issue with something like this, and spin their poster miles looking for technical inaccuracies that ultimately have no practical significance to the vast majority. Yet this thread is filled with remarks of this sort. Not sure who they think they are fooling.
  10. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #219 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "I do not understand how that shows that temperature is not a measure of heat content." Again it is a matter of precision. Temperature is a measure of energy density, if you double the amount of energy in a kg of material you double its absolute (K) temperature; it is a simple as that. But if you do not specify the amount of material the temperature, for a given amount of energy, is completely unspecified. 'Quantity of material' can be (almost) anything, it can be a single atom or even smaller. A single atom can vibrate in three directions and the thermal energy, which is neither more nor less than the vibrational energy of the atom. Because a single atom vibrates in three directions, called degrees of freedom, the total energy of the atom is divided into three parts, one part in each degree of freedom. The relation between temperature and vibrational energy is called the Boltzmann constant In #219 you also wrote:- "If no thermal energy can be transfered by IR radiation from a cooler object to a warmer one, how does a radiant barrier work in a vacuum (they do work, and have engineering applications)? " Radiant barriers in simplest terms reflect energy, stopping it getting where it isn't want. Reflection is quite differnt from absorption, when reflecting radiation the temperature of a mirror is not changed (or changing). There is a further consequence of this 'non-absorption' of energy by reflection; a perfect mirror cannot emit any energy at any temperature. Real objects reflect partially and emit/absorb partially Yet further in #219 you wrote:- "Abut the second question, your answer is a little strange. Why only "thermal processes" (whatever that means) and IR radiation?" Again the distinction is in the detail. Thermal processes are generally considered to be those caused by vibrations in atoms and molecules, this includes thermal radiation since thermal radiation arises from the (thermal) vibration of electric charge. An example of non-thermal transfer of energy is evaporation of water and rainfall. Both of these processes arise from thermal energy but the way they happen is rather special since it has a lot to do with intermolecular forces that are not included in thermal processes. Another non-thermal process is convection. Convection is a very important heat transfer process in the atmosphere but works by bulk change in density, not at the molecular level. Temperature and heat are still important in these processes other energy processes are at work also. Some examples may appear to break 2nd Law; the Foehn wind is one. The exact working of the Foehn process is not simple since there are a number of energy processes occurring at the same time and the importance of each will be different in different situations. I want to revisit your #210, you wrote:- "The question is very clear, let me rephrase it: do you dispute that these gases absorb and emit IR in the stratosphere and that their radiative properties affect the temperature of the stratosphere? I made it very clear that the GHGs have radiative properties in the stratosphere but, just as on the surface, they do not affect the temeprature profile there. The temperature profile in the stratosphere (e.g. temperature increasing with altitude) is determined to a considerable extent by the radiative properties of oxygen, not the GHGs.
  11. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #218 archiesteel You wrote:- "Photons from the sun heat.... " Yes. "Assuming.... they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory " No. Just as objects like planets do not absorb 100% of the incident radiation from the Sun because a certain % (called the albedo) is reflected, neither is 100% radiated. What you should realise is that the % 'trapped' by a radiating planet is exactly the same as the % of the incoming radiation reflected as albedo. "Assuming ....IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, ... "transparent" to visible light ...similarly, non-greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2 are mostly transparent to IR-range photons. Do you agree with this?" Yes "Assuming....to maintain thermal equilibrium, greenhouse gas molecules re-radiates the IR energy in a random direction ....Do you agree with this?" Yes "some of the re-radiated IR energy will escape to space, some will get back down to the surface, and some will be captured by other greenhouse gas molecules, continuing the absorbtion/re-radiation cycle. Do you agree with this?" Yes. Now answer my questions - please. 1/You argue, correctly in my opinion, that GHGs radiate equally, on average, in all directions. Do you also accept my argument that the scattering/reflection processes that cause the albedo is completely independent of the direction of arrival of the photons that are scattered? 2/In an 'Earth' atmosphere, but of pure CO2, can you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 100, what % of photons emitted at a height of 5km will reach the surface without being reabsorbed? 3/What is in your or anyone else's writing, that explains just how the presence of GHGs change a planets surface temperature from that in the absence of GHGs?
  12. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    61 Albatross Agreed, let's talk about the science. The scatterplots. The observational data obviously has a lot less data points than the model. Importantly few at the extremes of deltaT. Do those few data points have a larger impact on the slope of the graph than the pile of data points in the middle? Is this part of the limitations of this being only 10 years of analysed data? What are the specific limitations of only having 10 years data?
  13. Renewable Baseload Energy
    quokka - That's a very interesting link (if off-topic for here). Do you know if any of the micro-reactor designs now in the US/European planning stages are set for high temps like those Russian designs?
  14. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:23 PM on 14 December 2010
    An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Eric (skeptic) #71 My broader question is is GHG warming of the rest of the atmosphere in any model? Eric, any day now I expect to read that you are skeptical of whether climate scientists remember to put their pants on in the morning. But seriously, why not ask some of these questions over at RC?
  15. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    A brief followup: the pdf indicates that the lapse rate is used as one of the predictors for the linear calculation of satellite sensor bias parameters. I take that to mean that lapse rate (derived from the model?) is used as an independent variable in a linear equation which calibrates the sensor.
  16. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    #72, scaddenp, I'm trying to find the answer to my general question myself, it has something to do with optical depth or thickness I think. For that particular AGCM my understanding is that the model is used to assimilate satellite measurements so they can be used for broader climate and weather studies such as Dessler's. That means it assimilates just the satellite measurements (radiation) and I'm not sure that lapse rate can be derived directly from those measurements (I could be wrong). But looking at the convection system equations, I guess the idea is that because the temperatures are calculated at each layer in the model, that temperature gradient does in fact represent the lapse rate in discrete steps. So I guess it is calculated within the model after all.
  17. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Now that John has mentioned the graphics would look good on a billboard, I think it's time to see if getting a SkS graph on a billboard can be done.
  18. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I hope Kooti will respond with some authority here but quickly looking at the pdf, I dont follow you. If lapse rate is an input (no sign of this being the case), how can lapse rate be used for quality check? Convection system is described.
  19. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    John, are you familiar with the Rimfrost website? Java applet with monthly and seasonal temp selection, CO2 concentrations from multiple sites, sunspots, linear and curve fits, etc. Fun!
  20. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #102: "As for the cooling that is supposed to happen," No guarantees there. We came through the quietest sun in decades and we warmed. See the thread Its (not) the sun.
  21. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #100: "always just a few years away... " All will be well once the magic clouds arrive. Just keep saying, "there's no place like home" and it will happen. Wonder who will play the wizard?
  22. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    I take it we can use them when arguing on message boards without having to mither you for every occasion, provided we also provide the link to you as well? I wouldn't want to burden you with too much to answer to!
    Response: Absolutely, do please use the graphics elsewhere and no need to ask (that was the point of the Creative Commons licence). Now that you bring it up, it might be helpful if I also include the most relevant link for people to link to if using the graphic in a forum. Eg - for the solar activity graphic, a good link is:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
  23. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Thankyou.I used to cringe at the thought of looking at a simple graph.I have caught on and wish to move on..I think your work will be Very helpful Jean M
  24. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    In http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/Rienecker369.pdf (the model Dessler used to get the top chart in the post) it seems like the AGCM has no mechanism to use convection and latent heat transfer to estimate the lapse rate. Instead the lapse rate seems to be an input to the model. It seems to me that lapse rate is the most direct determiner of cloud amounts and cloud feedback lapse rate controls convection. My broader question is is GHG warming of the rest of the atmosphere in any model? This question came to mind reading the explanation of GHG warming on the other thread which didn't take into conduction from the GHG to the non-GHG. My understanding is that this happens much more often than the GHG re-emitting radiation that it just received. The equations in the model above don't appear to have that conduction, hence the need to input lapse rate. I don't know how any model can calculate lapse rate without conduction.
  25. Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
    I think the question (108) has better answer. "Competent" to my mind means working in the field and publishing in proper peer-reviewed journals on climate(ie not E&E). Wikipedia has this list. Now some of those on list, certainly dont fit my category of "competent". Some are industry shills. However, most in fact have a nuanced position. Acceptance of physical reality but alternative theories for PARTS of climate - eg the value of climate sensitivity, relative role of GHG to other natural factors etc. Mostly they are in different class from the denialists who will simultaneously hold "its not happening, its not us, its good for us" - ie "I'll believe anything that support no change in policy". Note the number of "emeritus" class people - now that's a warning. I'd say Spenser, Lindzen (when talking to other scientists), Christy, maybe Chylek as credible people. I would read published papers on the subject from them with some respect. Many of the others are also people I would read when publishing in their respective fields as they are certainly competent there.
  26. Renewable Baseload Energy
    Here is an interesting idea for getting rid of coal - Coal2Nuclear. Briefly put, the idea is to retain the turbines, switch yards etc of existing coal plants and replace the coal boilers with small modular reactors. I don't know how feasible the idea is and it depends on the commercial availability of small modular reactors which are 7 - 10 years off. Nevertheless it certainly presents an interesting possibility for very economically giving coal the flick. It is just a thought, and I do not present it as a solution at this time as is commonly done for technologies such as enhanced geothermal which in reality is at least as far, and very possibly further away as a commercial proposition.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed link
  27. Philippe Chantreau at 12:25 PM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    You could have answered the first question, I thought it was made clear enough. As for this: "The tiniest particle has a temperature, its 'heat content' may be microscopic while its temperature can make it glow any colour you like." I do not understand how that shows that temperature is not a measure of heat content. Or perhaps you'd prefer energy content? In any case, what does temperature measure then? Abut the second question, your answer is a little strange. Why only "thermal processes" (whatever that means) and IR radiation? There is a number of good questions also in post 218. Let me just add this one: If no thermal energy can be transfered by IR radiation from a cooler object to a warmer one, how does a radiant barrier work in a vacuum (they do work, and have engineering applications)?
  28. A new resource - high rez climate graphics
    Great idea John. This should help us all. Bob
  29. Pete Dunkelberg at 12:18 PM on 14 December 2010
    An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Phila # 65 What's even more surprising is how quickly people return to their errors after being corrected. Sometimes it's almost like the discussion never happened, and everyone has to go back to square one. It's not just sometimes, and that's the real problem. The same debunked arguments are repeated endlessly across the internet, in the press, on talk radio and even in the halls of Congress.
  30. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @408 archiesteel My "opinion" that nuclear is cheaper than renewables is supported by the most recent estimates of the LCOE of the various generation technologies by IEA and EIA which I provided references to earlier in this thread. It is also supported by this The arithmetic adds up to nuclear metastudy surveying the authoritative literature. Micro generation will NOT reduce the cost of the "mix". The experience of feed in tariffs for PV should make that abundantly obvious. But if you think otherwise please present some evidence. Nuclear is the only economically viable replacement for coal in baseload generation. As Hansen and others have repeatedly pointed out getting rid of coal is the highest priority in emissions reduction. It we do not push for the elimination of coal and push hard, then we might as well give up on the notion of a safe climate. Cut the waffle about "mixes" and cut to the chase.
  31. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    99, muoncounter, I was very unfamiliar with most of the material in that paper. They didn't get into the effects of solar minimums because they probably specialize in the solar cycles themselves, but there are a lot of other people looking for effects that match those solar cycles (without very good matches to the record IMO). As for the cooling that is supposed to happen, first I don't think it is a forcing (per my previous comment) or alternatively, I would say only somewhat tongue in cheek that the ocean is storing the cooling.
  32. Renewable Baseload Energy
    @quokka: why are you talking about Joe Romm? I didn't. Now, if you are claiming I believe "The only possible solution is individual action", then you are using a strawman argument. I certainly do *not* think that the only possible solution is individual (considering that many see me as a Socialist, that'd be suprising). I do think that our Energy problem is so severe we must both act individually *and* through our governments for large-scale projects. The economy will profit either way. "when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher." That is opinion, not fact, and it clearly ignores any participation of microgeneration in the mix. "Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported." Right. That's a pipe dream, and you know it - it would take considerable effort to deal with the NIMBY effect for so many stations. Again, it will be easier to sell nuclear along with renewables than instead of them. "It is not I who is being "illogical"." A strawman argument is a logical fallacy. You can deduce the rest.
  33. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    @damorbel: the question was quite clear, actually. "the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE" Stop acting as if you've made that case, because you haven't. It's quite simple, really. Let's try to break it down in yes/no questions, shall we? Photons from the sun heat the surface of the Earth through thermal radiation. Do you agree with this? Assuming you agree: when object increase in temperature, they emit IR energy, as described by black body theory. Do you agree with this? Note that "the surface" as an object is a bit of an oversimplification (see sensible heat and latent heat transport), but you get the idea, right? Assuming you agree: this IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, who are mostly "transparent" to visible light (i.e. they absorb photons in the IR range more than they do those in the visible light range); similarly, non-greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2 are mostly transparent to IR-range photons. Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: in order to maintain thermal equilibrium, greenhouse gas molecules re-radiates the IR energy in a random direction (i.e. in every direction, when considering large amounts of molecules). Do you agree with this? Assuming you do: some of the re-radiated IR energy will escape to space, some will get back down to the surface, and some will be captured by other greenhouse gas molecules, continuing the absorbtion/re-radiation cycle. Do you agree with this? There you go: five simple yes or no questions. Be forewarned that any attempt to circumvent the questions, divert the debate or start playing silly semantics will be met with the scorn and/or ridicule it deserves.
  34. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    In reference to my previous post, the Fallacy Of Division in the G&T paper is completely clear in their Figure 32, page 78, where they draw an incorrect heat transfer diagram - and claim it to disprove thermal radiation. This is both a strawman argument and a Fallacy Of Division. Completely bogus, sad to say.
  35. Renewable Baseload Energy
    406 archiesteel I would remind you that I am NOT the one posting here who has a financial interest in making a sales pitch. "absolutist" assertions that
    The only possible solution is individual action. The fact that you will save money and be more comfortable is gravy.
    can reasonably be interpreted in only one way - micro generation. The assertion is nonsense, not based on evidence and intellectually indefensible. Let me repeat, I am NOT the one making a sales pitch here and I am NOT ascribing to others positions that they do not hold - read what was posted before making accusations. The whole "argument" about a mix of generation technologies is facile. There has been a mix in the past, there is currently a mix and without a shadow of a doubt there will be a mix in the future. As always, the devil is in the detail and the composition of the mix is the crunch point - it much be reliable from an engineering point of view and it must not be too expensive, otherwise it will never happen. Joe Romm is one who pushes this mix of technologies argument ad infinitum and states that nuclear will be part of his mix. But when a republican senator proposes 100 new nuclear power plants for the US Romm launches a broadside by reproducing a piece blathering on about jobs, college places and most astonishingly cost when the cost of other low emissions technologies would almost certainly be higher. Not once are CO2 emissions and the fact that the proposal, if realized, would make another 20% of US generation capacity very low emission mentioned. Those nukes would displace baseload coal and reduce US emissions from electricity generation by 30% or more. Such a proposal should be wholeheartedly supported. It is not I who is being "illogical".
  36. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    "Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material." More wierdness. "Insulator" in terms of GHE is more of conceptual term and I dont like it. GHGs are NOT a conductive insulator, never have been postulated to be and far as I can see, you are the only one insisting on this understanding of the word "insulator". In the more general sense of an impediment to energy transfer, then GHG are insulators but the mechanism of impediment has nothing whatsoever to do with the conductive properties of the atmosphere. But this has been explained to you before... You are persisting with idea that textbook thermodymanics postulates that GHE is due to conductive-like heat transfer from bodies of different temperatures. This is also not true. If your notions cannot explain the results of a laboratory experiment and yet textbook thermodynamics, dont you think its time to start reading?
  37. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- No it is not. You are jumping around. The framework I referred to is the way that "heat flow"/"heat transfer" is introduced in thermodynamics theory. Reading that would dispel the idea that modern thermodynamics is trapped in caloric theory. Instead of jumping around, do you that an experiment is arbitor between textbook physics and your odd ideas? There is no further point to this discussion unless you do.
  38. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    It would be a gift to have a very low solar activity for the next decade. Though it would just be a delay, after that warming would kick in again, only faster.
  39. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    I suggest the text "This climate sensitivity of an additional 1°C warming" should be reworded "This minimum climate sensitivity of 2.2°C warming", as the term "climate sensitivity" refers to both direct and indirect effects of a doubling of CO2. I still worry that we may be underestimating the climate sensitivity. For example, as far as I know the models do not factor in the release of methane from deposits of methyl hydrate. Also, ice core data reveals spikes in temperature between ice ages and interglacials averaging more than 10 degrees C, even though the spike in CO2 between ice ages and interglacials is less than 100%.
  40. An Even Cloudier Outlook for Low Climate Sensitivity
    Ron Crouch #64 But who am I to question Roy's science, after all, as he states, everybody else is wrong and only he is right. The last time I paid any attention to Spencer, he was scolding other climate scientists for treating his claims about an 0.5 percent change in cloud cover over the last 30 years as speculative. He actually complained that his colleagues wanted to know what might cause such a change. He really doesn't seem to get that the burden of proof is on him, and that people who make commonplace requests for evidence are not modern-day Inquisitors. Roy is quite aware of this. I wonder if he is. It's amazing what people can forget or overlook when they need to.
  41. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel, everyone else - Lets, just for a moment, return to the topic of this thread. Critics (exemplified by G&T, as linked in the initial topic) have argued that the atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They have argued this claiming that "heat cannot flow from colder to warmer" (correct, where 'heat' is the sum of energy flows), while blatantly ignoring the fact that thermal radiation from a colder atmosphere can reduce the sum energy flowing from the warmer ground/water, causing the surface to heat until it's thermal radiation once again equals the incoming visible radiation. This conflation of 'heat flow' with basic radiative dynamics is the basis of the entire "2nd law objection" error. They claim the part (thermal IR from cold to warm) is the whole (summed energy flow, or 'heat flow'), and in this they are sadly incorrect. This is the Fallacy Of Division. Greenhouse gases, by absorbing/re-radiating thermal IR at various frequencies, redirect just under 50% of that IR back to the ground (backradiation, easily measured, and quite well established over 50 years ago), which means that the amount of radiation from the surface to space is reduced at any particular temperature, as per the previous paragraph. Heat transfer (defined as sum of energy) is from the warmer ground to the atmosphere and to space. But it's less efficient when greenhouse gases are present, requiring the ground to be warmer, to radiate more, to be in equilibrium with incoming visible light. This is entirely in line with the first and second laws of thermodynamics - there is no contradiction, the greenhouse effect follows the laws of physics. damorbel - You've jumped around (intentionally or otherwise) from red herring to red herring. You too are guilty of the Fallacy Of Division. However, you have correctly noted that objects absorb photons within their absorption spectra, regardless of the source. Therefore an object (of any temperature) can receive energy from another object (of any temperature), with the 'heat flow' determined by the summation of those energies. The GHE changes the summation at the surface of the Earth, and balance can only be maintained with a higher surface temperature than would be present otherwise - it's really no more complicated than that. If you have issues with anything I have said in this post, please say so - I can point you to where each part of this has been measured and demonstrated repeatedly over the last few centuries. Note, however, that I will call out strawman arguments or red herrings.
  42. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    damorbel: You were asked two questions in Philippe's post #208. Both of them are quite clear - if you wanted you could answer both of them with just 'yes' or 'no'. One of them appears to be a request that you clarify your central position on this thread. You answered neither of them in your post #209. Indeed, your answer reads like a diversion rather than an attempt to address the question. As has been put to you on several previous occasions, the hard fact is that backradiation and other greenhouse-effect features can be, and have been, empirically measured. So to be frank, it appears that the issue at hand continues to be your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. All the more so since you insist (on this comment thread, at least) on arguing at a purely conceptual level, with no evidence to support your claim other than assertion. If you can provide either (A) some empirical measurements, preferably published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are false, or (B) documents, preferably also published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that the methods used to collect the empirical measurements demonstrating a greenhouse effect are fatally flawed, then perhaps you will make some progress here.
  43. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re #210 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature" Not remotely. The tiniest particle has a temperature, its 'heat content' may be microscopic while its temperature can make it glow any colour you like. You wrote also:- "The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface?" That is far too general ('any and all kinds'!) but if you confine the transfer to thermal processes (including radiation) the answer is yes, I do argue that, it's what the 2nd law is all about.
  44. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re 207 scaddenp You wrote:- "A few minutes reading the framework would dispel that notion" The framework has this:- "Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. Trapping heat needs an insulator, material with a relatively low thermal conductivity, such as an expanded polystyrene container or a vacuum flask. This insulating material slows the rate of heat transfer in or out of the container. If your flask is made of transparent material, heat will also transfer out of (or into) the flask by radiative process. This radiative process can be reduced by coating the flask surfaces with a highly reflective material. The critical factor in this matter is that reflection 'traps' heat, not absorption/emission; GHGs do not reflect radiation to any measurable extent, certainly no more than O2 and N2. If you are interested in highly effective 'trapping' of radiation, you only have to check optical fibres used to transmit data accross oceans, some are able to contain (trap) IR radiation for 100s of kilometers before a repeater is needed.
  45. Philippe Chantreau at 09:32 AM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Since you're a stickler for words, let's kepp it tight. Heat content is what is measured by temperature. The question is very clear, let me rephrase it: do you dispute that these gases absorb and emit IR in the stratosphere and that their radiative properties affect the temperature of the stratosphere? The other question is this: Do you argue that there can be no energy (any and all kinds) transfer between the atmosphere and the surface because the atmosphere is colder than the surface?
  46. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    Re 208 Philippe Chantreau You wrote:- "CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that?" I suggest your question is unclear. Heat is measured by temperature, the basic rule of 2nd law of thermodynamics. A heat budget would just say that heat transfer is from the hotter location to the colder, the hard thermodynamic fact that destroys the AGW/GHE.
  47. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    @muoncounter: it seems the cooling trend that is supposed to disprove AGW is always just a few years away...
  48. What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
    #98: Eric, thanks for that link. Its actually not a bad paper, but it makes no mention of clouds or cooling. They do forecast that the next sunspot max (in 2014-15) will be roughly 1/3 of the sunspot peak in 2000, ie, that we have entered a 'grand solar minimum' in 2008. Let the cooling begin! Oh, wait, it should have started already. Ironic that this paper by Russians was given at a cosmic ray meeting in the hot summer of August 2010.
  49. Philippe Chantreau at 08:04 AM on 14 December 2010
    The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
    CH4, H2O and CO2 are present in the stratosphere where thay absorb and radiate IR. Their radiative effects are part of the total stratospheric heat budget. Do you dispute that? Between the claims on historical elements and all the rest, it seems that your argument is that the atmosphere can not radiate any energy toward the surface because it is colder, is that what you are actually trying to defend here?
  50. Medieval Warm Period was warmer
    Re: stefaan (24) Thanks; I'd known that, but didn't want to prejudice you in any way. Makes one wonder, tho... The Yooper

Prev  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us